account is half of those folks typically refinanced into a fha loan. by the nature of the actuarial, it takes a snapshot of time assuming you are closing down the fund. there are revenues that will come to the funds that are not built in. all that being said, we will, in the president's budget, include the lower interest rates you describe. we will also include an updated projection of house prices. at that point, we will have a clearer picture of how the offsetting factors play. we would not say the right number today is the $31 billion. >> do you believe the difference in home prices that prevailed today versus the time this was done and the difference in volume you referred to would be enough to offset the value caused by the fact that we are

a low interest-rate environment? >> we have not finished those calculations. we are in the midst of doing that for the budget. they are both large effects. we simply do not have an answer to that. >> it is a large effect that comes from the difference in interest rates. you know the low interest-rate environment customs? >> let me ask my team behind me to get that. we will have that for you in a moment. >> my guess is i am not sure that assumption is as low as the rate is today with an interest-rate of 1.6%, it is shockingly low. we have a fed insisting it will keep this way. i will be interested to see what the net effect of this

interest rate is. >> there is an artificiality of the point in time because it presumes every one of the payoffs, we have no revenue to fha, where we know there is a large revenue -- >> there is a flaw in the model? >> no. congress requires the review is done in a runoff scenario. we also looked at, what if we keep doing business, so we have those projections. that is not the 2% calculation. it is something we could give you more detail on of what the net effect would be. >> does the modelling assume any recession between now and 2017? >> the modelling does include a range of runs from a mild recession to a very severe

recession. through the nature of the modelling, we do look at probabilities. >> but the evaluation, the model that comes up with the evaluation of - $13.5 billion? >> i am not sure if i am being clear. >> what is the average economic growth rate implicit or explicitness in that evaluation? >> again, i can get that for you momentarily. >> my last point, the senator from new jersey made a very important and impassioned argument about the effects of

hurricane sandy. we had damage in pennsylvania mostly from wind. the damage was not comparable to the damage by the water damage done along the shore. i am looking forward to seeing a supplemental that is well- crafted. we have a fiscal crisis of enormous magnitude. the necessary spending is very real to address the emergency. it is important that the offset. >> thank you. i would like to thank the secretary for being here today. the financial stability of the fha is an issue the community does not take lightly. we will continue the dialogue and take action where necessary to protect taxpayers. we appreciate your testimony. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> tomorrow, talking about the automatic budget cuts totaling almost $1.20 trillion including $500 billion in defense spending. >> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of 6-3 and they will say its precedent. indiana had a voter i.d. >> let's talk about the facts. they sustain societies on the indiana case and it was constitutional for them to establish the ide. they did not talk about -- >> let me finish. you misrepresented what i said. "so long, hold on. >> the supreme court of the law

of the land. when i hear these accusations that black people and voter i.d. laws disproportionately affect minorities, it applies -- it implies we have something missing in our brand. if white americans can get all the processes to follow the law, what are you telling lack people? that they are not good enough? that is what bothers me a lot about the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. there has to be something special when we deal with minorities because they are to feeble minded because they cannot follow the rules like everyone else. when you treat everyone like victims, i do not think they will aspire. >> more with the publisher of

conservativeblackchick.com tonight. >> now , a debate on elections in muslim countries following the arab spring. this was part of a daylong forum hosted by the tens of democracies. this is just over one hour. >> good morning everyone. thank you, bob, for that introduction and thank you all of you for coming out early this morning for what i think will be a lively debate. we are going to be asking the question if democracy is to triumph in the middle east, victories at the ballot box are unavoidable and essential. this is the motion we will be debating in the intelligence- squared format per requests from our panelists who have done

this once already -- they have had a practice round. they have not had a chance of doing this, but i suspect, had probably had several scotches and talked about ways to defeat their foes. we know that this is a time of revolution in the middle east. it started with a fruit sell seller in tunisia and toppled a 230-year dictator that spread to egypt and the egyptian revolution was concern to the united states. egypt has long held incredible importance to u.s. policy in the middle east. the u.s. reaction to that revolution was unclear. there were some that said this was a good thing that this would only lead to democracy.

there were others who insisted that mubarak was not a dictator, which might be an insult to dictators if he spent 30 years securing that grip on power. the revolution in egypt has taken many turns. the muslim brotherhood has come to power through the ballot box but has been marred thanks to edicts by morsi. earning him the title of morsilini. or mubarak with a beard. revolution is going. syria is teetering, jordan is burning and the future is yet to be written. the question, will there be elections, will islamists win, will it be one man one vote or one man, one vote, one time. with that, we are going to

debate the motion, if democracy is going to triumph are victories at the ballot box unavoidable. we will have opening remarks from our panelists. from there, we will have some question and answers from myself and the audience and our panelists will be allowed two minutes at the end to restate their case and potentially persuade you to believe in what they believe. we'll start with reuel. you may begin. >> this is at such an angle, i don't think i can drink. >> i'm confident you will find a way to drink. >> i want to thank everyone for

coming and particularly i want to thank my co-panelists here. rob and i have been debating this issue for almost a decade. certainly with bret, i don't think i ever disagreed with him except on this issue and i particularly have to thank my debating colleague, brian katulis from the center of american progress. it shows the left and right can come together on certain issues and particularly brave for him to be with me because on occasion, i have looked at the web site and i am sometimes found there me to be depicted as the son of satan and i'm not sure what that makes brian. what we are really talking about here is do you prefer dictatorship to democracy, because that's what the resolution really is, because we know that if you actually

have a free vote, right now islamists are always going to do well and probably going to triumph. that may not be the case down the road. right now, if you have a free vote, they will triumph. that makes them unavoidable and essential. if you believe you have to go down that path, some path, then you are going to have to open up the road and the option of them. now, what the opposing side is really saying, i think, is you know what we really wanted to have and may be too late now but still want it, is they want to have kamalism. that's what they believed him you were going to have kamal and enlightened despotism, that is the authoritarianism that grew out of the turk movement in the late ottoman empire and enlighten despotism and create

a new liberalism that would become democratic in the middle east and take the sharia and take the faithful and you more or less passed them off and replaced them with swift legal codes and at the end of the process, muslims would be bavelly us. well, you know, one, let's look at turkey, that hasn't exactly turned out so well. what happened is that as soon as the turkish military allowed a free vote, islamic history came roaring back. you don't get to cut off 600 years of islamic history and create little men. and the justice and development

party has come back and come back rather powerfully and won at the ballot box repeatedly with a free vote. in the future, that may not be the case, but we know if democracy is to have a chance in turkey, their successors will be there and we know that -- that's the most liberal model. in the arab world where we hope the kamalism would come about, you have dictatorships and the kings that we like, that at the end of the process -- we didn't even get close to that. what happened in the arab world is that dictatorship produced societies where fundamentalism has become the number one dominant intellectual force. and what happened in the arab world, they produced societies that gave it al qaeda.

that's what happens down the dictatorial path. it is absolutely certain that we don't know the islamism, the fundamentalism is going to head in the middle east, but we should have the decency to reflect on our own history and to realize we shouldn't say to them what westerners themselves didn't live up to. you can't expect them to be better than we were. and if you think about how long it took for us to get where we are today, then we should have, we must have a bit more patience for them. >> thank you, reuel. now rob satloff. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be here to join my panelists against these

two opponents of ours. after jim woolsey's opening comments that put their side of the argument on the side of hitler-stalin and khomeini. [laughter] if democracy is to triumph in the middle east, we oppose both parts of this resolution. islamic victory is neither inevitable nor welcome as the resolution suggests. first, inevitable, just look at elections throughout the region. historically, islamists rarely get more than a third of the vote. they don't win non-islamists lose. non-islamists divide among themselves and not that they get more than 50%, they don't. the non-islamists collectively get the more than 50%.

the islamists get less. the division amongst the non- islamists is what matters. look at egypt, five elections in the last two years. since the fall of mubarak, non- islamists got increasingly more votes in every single election until the presidential election when, with a candidate so tarred by the fact that he was mubarak's alter ego, they still got 48.5% of the vote. imagine if they actually had a real independent candidate, they would have won. the numbers clearly support the case that islamists' victories are not inevitable as the resolution, unavoidable as the

resolution suggests. secondly, the more pernicious part of the agreement that they are essential or the idea that it is in fact good, positive, beneficial for these guys, the islamists to win. some, like reuel say in order to fight al qaeda, we need to help the islamists to win. that, in fact, they sill absorb the islamists' tendencies and dry up support for the true violent radicals. this is a fundamental misreading of the islamist's project. this is an ideology we should respect with seriousness and respect. i define it as the pursuit of political power with the aim of establishing regimes based on sharia law. it is by its very nature anti- west, anti-democratic, anti- liberal and anti-peace.

it's interests are opposite to ours. this is islamism, it is the opposite of democracy. democracy -- people are the source of legitimacy. periodic elections to choose one's representatives. the idea that the political minority can eventually become the majority. respect for certain rights. protection for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. protection that goes beyond tolerance and of course the rule of law, the respect for a judiciary that is independent. today's debate is simple. we aren't asking whether they can be good muslims and good democrats, the answer to that is yes. but can islamists be democrat. can advocates of the ideology of fundamentalism lead their countries to democracy? the answer is an obvious no. our answer is grounded inexperience and fact. their answer is grounded in hope and assertion.

we have experiences, iran, gaza, sudan, lebanon, turkey, in none of these countries have the attributes of democracy occurred when islamists were in power. rights are recognized only in some of them to varying degree and no free elections have occurred and some people aren't recognized as the sources of authority. are islamists terrorists? absolutely not. but will islamism ever surrender power if it loses elections? we don't know. if we aren't confident about that fundamental fact, how can we be confident that their election is essential for democracy. it hasn't happened. we have no idea whether the first set of elections in egypt in 7,000 years is in fact the last set of elections.

so, let me just quote one final citation in closing from the egyptian muslim brotherhood's web site before they realized everyone was reading it and then learned the lesson of western p.r. quote, if democracy means that people decide who leads them, then we accept it. if it means that people can change the laws of allah and follow what they wish to follow, then it is not acceptable. that's the heart of the story and it is not the path to democracy. thank you. >> it's getting a little feisty here. but bring up brian. >> it's great to be here. i love the spirit of this. i'm probably going to bring this back a notch. i think a big part of this is

the definition aspect of what is is lama, who was winning how much? pay attention to those details. i want to make three points. two to the motion and another about policy. number one and, i think the question of islam and democracy and whether it is compatible, not what we are debating, is the charm of the irrelevant question. you have many muslim majority countries including the largest, indonesia. you have islamist political parties participating within that system. when we have these discussions, we are narrowly focused on the narrow focus of the muslim world. we need to keep that experience

in mind. the main point is that there's nothing inherently anti- democratic about is lomb in terms of political culture. i think we agree with that point. this is where we disagree, but given the middle east, the crushing social demographic, economic pressures they are facing, changes coming. i go back regularly and i support the motion as it is currently crafted. i think it is like debating gravity. you see the early results >> toomey it seems like a necessary first stage of this debate which we see unfold in

egypt. some of them, but not all of them will try to set the table, but public debate and open debate and try to impose a model that closes off pluralism. i do not see this in egypt today is a realistic possibility as we sit here today. this clash is spilling over into the seats -- streets. there is this desire for pluralism, and that political islamist forces quite naturally in this early stage will be part of that. whether they will win majorities or not, but the main point is that it is necessary. the question of avoiding it, i do not know. the third point i want to stress, i do not believe the political islamist forces will be forced to change and adapt both their ideology and policy. this is perhaps the leap of faith. it is my belief in democratic systems of freedom, but the open

debate and pluralism will require islamists when exposed to the public, will force and to pay the heavy price of governing. in egypt we see that already. much in the same way that in the next couple of weeks in this town we will see some ideologues, see their ideology tested. grover norquist -- both ways. political forces, wherever their ideology is grounded, as long as the system remains open tand pluralistic, but will be forced -- we see this in indonesia. in 2002, the islamist parties got 41% of the vote. the decline over the last couple of years to about 29%. i believe we are in the early

stages of transformation in the middle east. we will talk about that complex competition for power. a final point -- i hope we debated a little bit. it is the issue of u.s. policy. it is my view that two years into this transition in the middle east -- and i avoid calling it arab awakening or arab spring. it is too early to characterize it. we've only seen about four countries, senior leaderships' change. -- seen their leadership's change. how we actually change and adapt and become more nimble, both in terms of how we deal with political islam and all other actors, we need to figure out how to most judiciously engage and offer support to non islamist forces. if you look a the most recent election results in egypt, there

is a desire and hundred. that includes islamist and non islamist political forces madr. we are not well poised. we do not have the capacity to deal with this. we can talk about this. this is where we have the strongest military in the world, unrivaled intelligence capabilities. we sometimes screw that up, as the case of benghazi demonstrates. the biggest policy question for us is how we become more nimble and understand the political trends in these societies. [applause] >> thank you, brian. bret, you are up. >> , am very honored to be here. i am particularly honored to be

on a panel introduced by jim woolsey. i have the greatest admiration for him. the austrian physicist used to put down his worst students by saying, you're not even wrong. [laughter] that is how i am inclined to take this project i will spare you. -- i will spare you. if i say to my son what is 5 + 7711, that is wrong. -- seven and he says eleven, that is wrong.

what it is has been that? what do of heard from reuel is a banana. the choice that we face is between secular dictatorship of the mubarak, or and democracy. we have to accept this democracy because even if it is islamist, it is a type of democracy. if you cast your mind back to january of 2011 when this whole business began, maybe december of 2010 with tenacious, -- tunisia, you could have made an argument that would have turned out to be wrong based on the following things. first of all, but the people at teh square -- the square where

these marvelous characters. there were on their blackberries, they work socially network and progressive. -- were socially networked and progressive. you had a pundits saying the islamists are late to this party, this process is being driven by young progressives. i did not see it that way. and like the bolsheviks overtook the mensheviks, you began to see the muslim brotherhood come in. and the brotherhood offers this promise that it was not going to contest the presidential election. do you remember this promise? well, you already knew that

things are going in a very bad way when as soon as they saw the opportunity, they broke the promise. by the way, i politely disagree here with rob satloff. i think he is somewhat -- he dramatically underestimates the strength of islamist political parties throughout the entire middle east. if the resolution is that if we're going to go through the process victory of islamist is inevitable. and i agree with him, it is inevitable. people say, the islamists have one, but mohammed morsi is this nonentity of a character. holding the reins of power is the army.

defense trades atse strait the chiefs of power. you have to just love it. life gives a few gifts. on the 21st of november, you have this incredible story in the new york times about how barack obama has established this global confidence and trust, mohamed morsi has the mind of an engineer, of course the next day he assumes dictatorial powers by declaring that the timing was -- [laughter] this is the way that the muslim brotherhood operates. anyone who understands this

could have seen this coming in long time ago. this is the essence of the problem. if you want to have a democratic process in the middle east, one that represents most of the people, you have to have islamist parties participate in that process. if you want to have a democratic outcome, do have to prevent the islamist parties from participating because the first thing they will do is destroy the democracy. the conclusion is we're not going to have a democratic future in the middle east and the need to start thinking about some alternatives street. -- alternatives. [applause] >> i am not going to ask reuel to do any simple math. we know the answer. it will be fruit. let me tease out a couple of things. brian, do mentioned there is nothing antidemocratic about islam.

a wanted her a little bit from you and and perhaps from rob. we need to make some distinctions between islam and islamism. >> that was the first position i was trying to mix. you can see around the world, the number of muslims in the world, the fact that sometimes the organized politically and participate in a democratic system, there is nothing is sent list in terms of islam and democracy being incompatible. i think this is a quiet debate and we have enough experience out there. my own experience living and working in the middle east in the dark ages, before the bush administration put it higher on the agenda back in the 1990's, there was sort of generation that is coming to the fore right now that once a say in their political system.

i was an actor rock early after the invasion, doing work on democratic political systems -- iraq early after the invasion, doing work on democratic political systems. while our troops were there, a political parties become quite dominant and that political system and even to this day. that is the point, engaging these different forces shaping them will be the next stage. i am not saying that iraq is a democracy, but there is a chance with this new generation. >> i disagree with my partner here. in 18 07, when the british

decided that the slave trade was a bad idea and i went to go in and the ottomans had the slave trade going, by the way -- the ottomans responded as any sensible muslim would have. they said, have you lost your mind? slavery is vouchsafed to us by god. slavery was part of the islamic tradition. it was very clear that the tenets of islam allowed slavery. it is very clear that the tenets of classical islam are non- democratic. democracy is a western import. the thing to remember is evolution. you will find very few muslims outside of saudi arabia today who believe that slavery is

vouchsafed to them by god. there has been a successful alteration of the islamic identity on that issue. i would suggest democracy is one of those issues. >> rob, has islam involved? amend sorry to slightly the question. the question is really about muslims. not about islam. the same way the question is not about christianity or judaism. it is about how people act and organize themselves politically. jews and christians in the course of history have themselves had a rather checkered experience, not only with democracy, but with self- government. those of us in the jewish faith in this room know that we screwed up a couple of times, self-government. >> doing it again.

[laughter] >> there is a challenge under way. [laughter] ealing with dif their challenge, with the democratic principles can be reconciled -- whether democratic principles can be reconciled. the vast majority of muslims today in the world have realized that you can reconcile traditional islamic principles with democratic principles. how they do this successfully, unsuccessfully -- to have figured it out. doesn't mean the tension has gone away? absolutely not.

>> let me ask this question. there is this notion that once islamist come to power, that is how the discredit themselves and perhaps overly get saddled with the mundane issues of garbage collection and other things, and by themselves moderating. is that an inevitability? >> rob and not even make the best possible case he could. achieve agoing to future in which muslim majority states have read themselves of these ideological in affections of socialism, and so on, there is no way out but through. they have to experience it for themselves. the evidence of that is to look at -- 80% of iranians who

contest their regime. in have been living under it for intergenerational. now you have a majority of iranians with no living memory of the shah. exactly sure -- that is a strange argument for saying we have to go through islamism, "have to live through 30 years of. -- tyranny. >> we have five minutes. >> maybe that is an argument. where do not see this to be the case, there is this notion that people are going to say, they did not collect the garbage as well as they had promised. in a way that i operate in concord massachusetts, -- they may operate in conquered

massachusetts -- that is not what these islamists are about. ayatollah co khomeini said, would not have a revolution to bring down the price of melons. there is no instance of an islamist government saying, time is up and you guys won and we're walking off the stage. i do not think it will happen in turkey either. >> i actually agree with bret. i cannot find terribly compelling the argument to say we're going to pick up the trash and moderate. but the muslim brotherhood is a bad virtue. you want to see muslims start having the organic debates they were having around the year 1900 and got aborted by the

arrival of dictatorship. the need to have them have the basic slugest amongst -- slugfest amongst people of faith. it is not going to be the liberals' i will drive al qaeda -- that will drive al qaeda out. >> reuel, you cannot claim that people of faith equal the islamists. if you go to egypt today, 80- some-odd-million people will say they are people of faith. muslim brotherhood is a well organized party with only 600,000 or 800,000 people. you cannot say the people of

faith in "islamists. it is an ideology for certain political goals, not a virtue. when the liberals in egypt when the election, you come back and talk to me. >> i want to add, i think we realize we're at this sensitive stage where there are multiple centers of power. you do have great liberal forces. they are in the streets. i want to stress my last point, the government largely standing on the sidelines. a private study was done along the same lines. u.s. government policy, but also those of you in civil society

and others, we're sort of sitting on the sidelines. there is a desire among a lot political forces including younger islamists who want to bring about change in a political movement. for the large part, we're sitting on the sidelines. we need to do more. >> we do need to move on to the two and a portion. i like to take a few questions from the audience -- q & a portion. i would like to take a few questions from the audience. >> i am from the center for democracy and human rights in saudi arabia during washington, d.c. what is missing around these discussions is the fact that islamists have nothing to offer.

the other point is, there is a new generation of arabs who are very different than their fathers and grandfathers. what we should be focusing on, our democracy are threatened by islamist ideology. what shall we do about the threat to democracy? this is the first time they are focusing on their own homegrown problems instead of blaming us and the israelis and other people. what should we do about the ecology that is focusing on destruction of democracies. -- ideology that is focusing on destruction of democracies?

>> it begins by recognizing what it is. a couple of years ago, before the tahrir square movement -- the term moderate is one of these slippery terms. to us, it means someone like us. in reality, allah defines is a position in a given political context. there were moderate nazis. but they were still not seize. -- all it defines is a position in a given political context. there were moderate not cease. -- nazis. but theyw er were still nazis.

but these people are extremists. we do have some type of understanding of how these groups are, and how in chemical their values are to our own. -- their values are to our own. point one. point two is something rob said in his remarks, we need to respect to they are. respect is to understand the gravity of what they are about. they are not about and less corrupt delivery of social services. they are about a virtue. the fundamental political distinction going all the way back to the greeks is the question, are you a virtue based society or a freedom based society? the new government in egypt, iran, all of them organize a panel "live on what they believe

is virtue -- political life on what they believe is virtue. it dictates your scope of action in life. it dictates fundamental, moral choices about who you mary, all kinds of stuff. that is another way in which we need to understand. that also leads to some deeper appreciation of how you go about tackling this. very briefly, we should distinguish the term, liberalism, from democracy. democracy is simply a process. you had an election. people can vote for their own enslavement, and often do. people forget this. there is a constituency in the world that is pro-submission. this is a psychosexual a fact of life that is fully appreciated

in the west. you distinguish between democracy and liberalism, and you try as best as you can to promote the spirit of liberalism even if it is procedurally at the expense of democracy. >> i am listening to this discussion, which i enjoy thoroughly. my mind goes to how, how do we do this. i may disagree with some of the things that bret said, but when you look at democracy and freedom, they are not as nimble as a need to be in washington, d.c. when a look at benghazi, the bigger policy debate we need to be having is how do we influence the next phase. ambassador chris stevens, who

was killed, we need to understand, who are the types of political forces we can work with and who those are that we need to kill. getting the facts straight is important. right now we're not well poised on egypt or and some of those other countries in the region. >> from the "daily piper," right behind you. >> i enjoyed: full debate. -- the colorful debate. what a thought was missing, especially would like to hear from rob and bret, this path leads us down the road the will not lead to more democracy in the middle east, but what is the alternative path? we tried the route of the

dictatorship and that another work. -- didthat did nto work. -- ntot work. there are many types of islamists in the region. watching how things are going in egypt, and egypt was mentioned quite a bit here because of the weight it carries, as someone who considers himself a secular, i am not upset arab, about morsi having to face millions of angry egyptians in the street. i take note when it comes to power and the treaty with israel is not the number one priority, when they are not banning alcohol in night clubs for the sake of the economy and tourism. when we talk about islamists, we have to take note that some islamists clark different than others.

-- are different than others. >> let me unpack a couple of thoughts. this is also connected to another slippery aspect of the argument made by reuel. if on the one hand islamists eagle people of faith, everyone on the other side are liberals. i do not believe ever use that term in anything i said. the opposite of islamists is non-islamists. there is a huge spectrum of people who will run into the streets because they are mad as hell about what their life will be like under islamist role.

-- rule. many people of faith, millions of people of faith. muslims, believing muslims, as opposed to many people who are the ham and cheese muslims. they're all there. but that is to the natural audience is. it is everyone who is opposed to the totalitarian agenda of the muslim brotherhood. it is huge out there. this is where i think a friendly debate between my partner and i disagree. bret and i disagree. in free and fair elections, where there is a level playing field and institutions of government are working, the non- islamists will triumph. in answer to brian's operational do, veryabout what you

simple answer. during the cold war, we paid a price. the cold war was a top priority and we aren't the islamists -- armed the islamists to defeat our number one enemy. there were negative results. but the goal was the end of the cold war. and we won. today i do not mind giving money to communists and leftists and socialists and helping them. i'm not worried about the return of the cold war. i'm not worried about leftist's coming to power. that should be the biggest challenge we face, right? we should not be indifferent to the upcoming egypt and countries across the middle east. we can both play a role in ensuring a level playing field and in assisting those who we

have an outcome in their success. we can do both. they're not antithetical. that should be what our agenda is in these countries. >> we have got if you add on, et cetera -- a few add-on comments. reuel? >> i believe in an intruding on everyone pulls a business trip i believe in unleashing the agency -- everyone's business. i believe in unleashing the agency, covertly supporting all the liberals that rob mentioned. i am all for it. hope to organize, hope the wind. but the odds -- they organize, hope they win.

in turkey, there were lots of liberals. more secularized muslims than anywhere else. they lost, then they lost again. the ahead and do it. united states should support the liberals, people of faith or not islamists amongst the muslims. be prepared, it will have to have islamists coming to power, and you will have to have the great debates with him in power. -- they coming to power. >> when you go out to places like cairo and amman and you meet quote, liberals, they tend to be nauseating. [laughter]

there is a real question, and i think reuel is right, which could be throwing a lot of money at buying laptop computers, or the young liberals society of alexandria. and it is just money down the drain. i remember having a meeting with the deputy head of the brotherhood six or seven years ago it turne. it turned out that morsi has a dgredegree from -- >> california state. >> most of the early leadership had degrees from these universities. >> we here in the waste have been trashing the good name of liberalism -- west have been trashing the good name of liberalism.

receivedbeen readily and imbibed by students of the middle east coming to american universities and sucking up this stuff and then going back and starting a revolution. iranian revolution comes from ideas gleaned from the 1960's an 1970's on western universities. this is a fundamental problem. until someone says, liberalism is as defined in the liberal papers, that is what liberalism is, then you can start constructing an idea that can compete with islamism, which says, we stand for justice. it